Australian Conveyancer:
Australian ConveyancerThe independent voice for practitioners
Subscribe

Practice raises ‘serious contractual and legislative concerns’

Real Estate Institute of NSW backs calls for deposit flicking to have ‘closer scrutiny’ from authorities.

Real Estate Institute of NSW chief executive Tim McKibbin.
Real Estate Institute of NSW chief executive Tim McKibbin.

THE Real Estate Institute of NSW is concerned some real estate agents mistakenly believed they could outsource AML/CTF obligations via deposit-flicking.

The controversial practice, where a real estate agent transfers a property deposit to a third party until settlement, has sparked concerns of possible financial risk and AML/CTF non-compliance.

NSW Fair Trading last week announced an investigation into the practice and whether real estate agents were acting in line with legal obligations.

§ Contractual and legislative concerns

REINSW chief executive Tim McKibbin said in a statement that deposit flicking required closer scrutiny, with the model raising “serious contractual and legislative concerns”.

McKibbin pointed to uncertainty around consumers’ access to statutory compensation if there was a trust account issue among the key concerns.

“There appears to be a belief held by some that outsourcing the trust accounting function to a third party removes the AML/CTF obligations. That is not our position,” he said.

§ Agents remain accountable under Tranche 2 laws

Under the Tranche 2 laws, overseen by federal anti-money laundering regulator AUSTRAC, practitioners must conduct due diligence on clients, report large cash transactions, keep records and report suspicious activity or risk multi-million-dollar fines.

The regulator has warned real estate agents that they remain accountable under the new laws aimed to combat organised crime, despite the availability of deposit flicking.

Griffith University’s Graeme Hughes, an expert on business and consumer issues, said some agents continued to think they could “paint outside the lines”, despite AUSTRAC’s warning.

“AUSTRAC has already been clear, which is that an agent who brokers the transaction remains a reporting entity regardless of whose account the money sits in, so the manoeuvre fails on its own terms before it even begins,” Hughes said.

§ Statutory trust account protections for buyers

As the practice continued, he said a big concern was for property buyers and reminded agents that “a statutory trust account is not administrative housekeeping”.

“It is a protection built deliberately around the buyer – funds held at an approved institution, audited and reported regardless of the result, ring-fenced from every other use, and in most states standing behind a fidelity fund if money ever goes missing,” he said.

“When a deposit is flicked to an outside platform, tens of thousands of dollars belonging to an ordinary buyer move outside that architecture and into the hands of a party the buyer never chose and cannot readily scrutinise.”

§ Conveyancers urge authorities to act

At least 170 conveyancers have lobbied authorities to clamp down on the practice, which has been criticised by the Australian Institute of Conveyancers NSW.

AIC NSW president Jennie Tonner has urged NSW Fair Trading to probe whether deposit flicking breaches agents’ legal obligations and to act ahead of the 2027 state election.

Published 27 July 2026Spotted an error?Send the newsroom a tip

Add Australian Conveyancer as a preferred source on Google

Frequently asked questions

Does transferring a deposit change an agent's reporting status?
Griffith University's Graeme Hughes said an agent who brokers the transaction remains a reporting entity regardless of whose account the money sits in.
What protections do statutory trust accounts provide for buyers?
Griffith University's Graeme Hughes said statutory trust accounts protect buyers through funds held at an approved institution, audited and reported, ring-fenced from other use, and backed by a fidelity fund in most states if money goes missing.
What obligations does the article say practitioners have?
According to the article, practitioners must conduct due diligence on clients, report large cash transactions, keep records and report suspicious activity or risk multi-million-dollar fines.

In this story

Part of an ongoing story